LIC OF INDIA Vs. K R VARIJAKSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard

(2.) One of the two pertinent questions that we are called upon to answer in this appeal preferred challenging the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below in (CDRF, Kasaragod in O. P. No.97/1998 is that whether the deceased Unnikrishnan who was the brother of complainant/respondent was suffering from epilepsy at any time before his taking Policy No.791633752 issued by the appellants and was taking tablet Gardinal 60 mg. for his ailment. Second question posed is even if the case of the appellants that the deceased was undergoing treatment epilepsy is found to be true whether the appellants are justified in repudiating the claim made by the respondent/complainant who is the nominee on the ground of fraudulent concealment or suppression of material fact by the life assured regarding his state of health in the proposal form and also at the time of taking policy.

(3.) The policy was issued to the deceased whose life was assured by the appellants and deceased died on 18.12.1996 at the Dr. T. N. A. Pai Rotary Hospital, Mangalore where D. W.2 was working as Neurologist at that time. Before deceased was referred to that hospital by D. W.1 he was admitted as an indoor patient at the Kasargod Nursing Home on 17.12.1996 and it is clear from Ext. R4 case sheet maintained in that hospital that the deceased was admitted to that hospital on 13.12.1996 at 6.30 p. m. and complaint was generalised concussion. Duty doctor who attended the patient at that time suspected epilepsy. Patient was conscious and was talking. Ex. R4 also proved the fact that before admission patient had taken Gardinal 60 mg. It is not the case of the complainant that immediately after admission of the patient Gardinal 60 mg. was administered to the patient as prescribed by the duty doctor who attended the patient immediately after admission. We may also point out here itself that no material was brought out in cross-examination of D. W.1 to reach a finding that the case sheet (Ext. R4) was tampered with by him or by the duty doctor so as to create evidence to help the appellants and we find no reason to exclude Ext. R4 from consideration. No such suggestion was put to D. W.1 while cross-examining D. W.1 on behalf of complainant and no such fact was spoken to by the complainant in his evidence. D. W.1 deposed that Ex. R3 is the reference letter given by him and evidentiary value of Ext. R3 is not detracted on the ground that D. W.1 has only put his initial in Ext. R3. There is no case for the complainant that deceased was not referred to T. N. A. Pai Hospital at Mangalore by D. W.1 from Kasargod Nursing Home.